True statements: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » True statements » True statements

True statements

Page: First 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Last

True statements

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/07/09 - 02:49 PM:	#411
Banno wrote: (Rolls the memo up and throws it at Oag.) I'm sorry but you will have to unroll the memo and read it to me. When and where did someone figure out how a subjective human perception could access objective reality?

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/07/09 - 02:54 PM:	#412
Banno wrote: The "agent" you mention is not an individual. Objective reality ( ) is best thought of as the stuff we agree on. The agent that was mentioned does not exist. The stuff that we agree on is not due to a perception of objective reality. It is due to a commonality of perception. That commonality might very well have its basis in objective reality but we can't know that for sure because we cannot access it and there is no agent to give us its objective perspective. All we ever have to work with are human observations. The stuff that we agree on is only true because we say so. It is true because we agree that it is.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 07/07/09 - 03:02 PM:	#413
oag wrote: The stuff that we agree on is not due to a perception of objective reality. It is due to a commonality of perception. That commonality might very well have its basis in objective reality but we can't know that for sure because we cannot access it and there is no agent to give us its objective perspective. Why do you think that there is something "out there" that we cannot access? I am going to get another cup of coffee. I know that for sure. I'm going to put it in the same Grommit cup I drank the last one out of. I am certain of it. What more do you want?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 07/07/09 - 03:06 PM:	#414
oag wrote: I'm sorry but you will have to unroll the memo and read it to me. When and where did someone figure out how a subjective human perception could access objective reality? (Folds another into a paper plane, throws it at Oag.)
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 07/07/09 - 03:19 PM:	#415
(Takes another mouthful of coffee; sweet, black.) Some things cannot be told; but they can be shown.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/08/09 - 08:09 AM:	#416
Banno wrote: Why do you think that there is something "out there" that we cannot access? I am going to get another cup of coffee. I know that for sure. I'm going to put it in the same Grommit cup I drank the last one out of. I am certain of it. What more do you want? I want you to stop telling me about objective reality because you do not have access to it. You can list your perceptions all day long but that is nothing more than what you see and experience. You are not objectively certain of anything, beyond Cartesian doubt. You are subjectively certain. In other words you have very strong belief that something is true or real. An insane or deluded person is just as certain of what they see but it is all in their head from where you and I are sitting. Everything you see and experience may be all in your head as well...including me. You do not have the ability to view things objectively. Your senses are limited. The input from them is filtered and interpreted by your brain in a unique way. This gives you your picture of reality. It is not an objective picture. Your certainty about things is only based on the fact that you see and experience things and they seem very real to you. You can stop throwing things at me because you don't have access to objective reality and you never will. You are stuck with your subjective perceptions just like the rest of us.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 611

Posted 07/08/09 - 08:25 AM:	#417
Banno, my subjectivity is telling me that you sound a little ignorant. Banno wrote: Why do you think that there is something "out there" that we cannot access? Because things happen that you would never expect. Banno wrote: (Takes another mouthful of coffee; sweet, black.) Some things cannot be told; but they can be shown. (Suddenly the cup slips out of Bannos fingers...) I don't think that was something you could expect. Ok you might have thought about such an occurrence. Still you wouldn't know when it would happen, unintentionally. Edited by Willowz on 07/08/09 - 08:34 AM
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

Posted 07/08/09 - 11:58 AM:	#418
Cheshire wrote: I agree that A sentence is true if it corresponds to a fact. An ideal fact is a state of affairs as it actually exists. What is an "ideal fact?" Do you mean something that actually is a fact, as opposed to something which is merely believed to be a fact? Cheshire wrote: I disagree that true statements universally relate to an objective reality, because an agent is required to determine whether correspondence is actually present. An agent may be required to determine whether correspondence obtains, but that agent has nothing to do with whether or not the correspondence actually obtains. Because even though determination may be the act of an agent, correspondence is simply a relationship between the proposition and the world. It is trivially true that verbal statements wouldn't exist without someone to verbalize them, but no agent is necessary for states of affairs to obtain and for it to be the case that statements about them -- were they to be made -- would be (and thus are, in some sense) true. Cheshire wrote: History, has shown our facts to be less than ideal, so our true statements relate to a subjective interpretation of objective reality. The better the facts the better the interpretation. You are mixing up two things: (1) true statements, and (2) what we believe to be true statements. All true statements are related to objective reality. That's why they're true. Statements we believe to be true may or may not ultimately relate to that objective reality, depending on whether or not they are actually true. oag wrote: Did someone find a way to confirm that there is an objective reality while I wasn't looking? I missed the memo. "There is no objective reality" is self-defeating. Either it is supposed to be subjectively true and I am free to reject it, or it is supposed to be objectively true and winds up contradicting itself. This memo has been posted for roughly 2500 years. oag wrote: True statements relate to a subjective observation of facts. They can never relate to the way things actually, objectively are because we don't and can't know that. And yet another person makes the fundamental mistake of conflating truth with knowledge. We make a statement. Whether we know it is true or not has no bearing on whether or not it is, in fact, true (unless the statement is self-referential and concerns our knowledge of it, I guess). oag wrote: We observe something repeatedly and consistently. We then invent, form, create, compose or otherwise pull out of our butts, a truth statement regarding the consistency of that observation. Sunrise is always in the east because that is what we have always observed and every observation about the rotation of Earth and the position of the sun tells us this is true. The truth of it is recursive. We've observed it to be true and stated it in such a way as to be a true observation. Now you're bringing in even more irrelevant issues. True statements do not have to be generalities. If you're willing to accept that we've observed it to be true that the sun has risen in the east in the past, then you accept that there are true statements. You are only doubting the ability of induction to generate further true statements. That's a completely different issue and has little or nothing to do with what we've been discussing on this thread. Banno wrote: Objective reality ( ) is best thought of as the stuff we agree on. But that just gets us into a problem we were otherwise never in to begin with! If "objective reality" refers to what we agree on, then true statements don't necessarily refer to objective reality. Because even though we agree, we could all be wrong (i.e., we could all agree to a false statement). And if that's the case, why call it objective reality? Like oag said, it would really just be commonality of perception. Truth, knowledge, belief, and agreement all need to be kept distinct if we are to make any progress in this discussion (or if we are not to lose what progress we've made).
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 07/08/09 - 04:08 PM:	#419
Willowz wrote: Banno, my subjectivity is telling me that you sound a little ignorant. Only a little? Try and keep up (I assume that at over a hundred posts, I am allowed not treat you as a newbie? ). The emphasis is on "that we cannot access". Oag, not I, has sugested that there are things which are not accessible.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 07/08/09 - 04:09 PM:	#420
oag wrote: You can list your perceptions all day long but that is nothing more than what you see and experience. Did you actually read what you wrote here?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Page: First 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.